Lewis v. Maston

1

Omar Deonte Lewis, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Russell Maston, Superintendent, Saint Marys Correctional Center, Respondent Below, Respondent

No. 22-0104

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

September 15, 2023

Fayette County 21-C-110

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Omar Deonte Lewis appeals the Circuit Court of Fayette County's January 12, 2022, order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.^[1] Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate. See W.Va. R. App. P. 21.

Petitioner was traveling at a high rate of speed and a Mount Hope police officer activated his lights and siren and attempted to stop petitioner's vehicle. Instead of pulling over, petitioner continued driving in a reckless fashion, crossing the center line at times. He was ultimately arrested after he fled from police while driving under the influence in his motor vehicle and later on foot. He was indicted on the following counts fleeing from an officer in a vehicle while driving under the influence, fleeing from an officer on foot, reckless driving obstructing an officer, and driving left of center. Petitioner entered into a plea agreement with the State wherein he agreed to plead guilty to fleeing in a vehicle while driving under the influence, a felony, and obstructing an officer, a misdemeanor. After a plea colloquy, the court found that petitioner knowingly and voluntarily entered guilty pleas to the two offenses, accepted the plea agreement, and sentenced petitioner.

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that alleged that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to give petitioner guidance prior to his sentencing and failing to challenge the traffic stop. The court declined to hold an omnibus evidentiary hearing and it denied petitioner habeas relief. It is from the court's order denying habeas relief that petitioner now appeals. Our review is guided by the following standard:

In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court in a habeas corpus action, we apply a three-prong standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law are subject to a de novo review.

Syl. Pt. 1, Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (2006).

"On an appeal to this Court the appellant bears the burden of showing that there was error in the proceedings below resulting in the judgment of which he complains, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the proceedings and judgment in and of the trial court." Meadows v. Mutter, 243 W.Va. 211, 218-19, 842 S.E.2d 764, 771-72 (2020) (citation omitted).

Petitioner first alleges that the court erred when it determined that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary. We have repeatedly held:

"'A court having jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings may deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the petitioner if the petition, exhibits, affidavits or other documentary evidence filed therewith show to such court's satisfaction that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.' Syllabus Point 1, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W.Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973)." Syl. Pt. 2, White v. Haines, 215 W.Va. 698, 601 S.E.2d 18 (2004).

Syl. Pt. 3, Antsey v. Ballard, 237 W.Va. 411, 787 S.E.2d 864 (2016). The post-conviction habeas corpus statute leaves the decision of whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing to the sound discretion of the circuit court. Gibson v. Dale, 173 W.Va. 681, 688, 319 S.E.2d 806, 813 (1984). The circuit court was familiar with petitioner's case as it had presided over the plea and sentencing hearings. Further, the court concluded in its order that the petition "and the record in this matter, are more than sufficient for the [c]ourt to conduct a fair and thorough adjudication of the issues raised without an evidentiary hearing and without further briefing or oral argument in this matter." Moreover, the circuit court satisfied Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Post--Conviction Habeas Corpus Proceedings in West Virginia, which requires the court to "include in its final order specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why an evidentiary hearing was not required." Accordingly, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner also claims error in the court's denial of habeas relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to provide appropriate sentencing advice prior to his plea and because counsel failed to challenge the legality of petitioner's traffic stop. Notably, petitioner affirmed to the court at his plea hearing that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation.

"In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): (1) Counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).

"In cases involving a criminal conviction based upon a guilty plea, the prejudice requirement of the two-part test established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995), demands that a habeas petitioner show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Syl. Pt. 6, State ex rel. Vernatter v. Warden, W.Va. Penitentiary, 207 W.Va. 11, 528 S.E.2d 207 (1999).

Syl. Pts. 8 and 9, Montgomery v. Ames, 241 W.Va. 615, 827 S.E.2d 403 (2019).

As to his initial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel petitioner argues that his counsel never told him that if he pled guilty to a charge and later denied his guilt, that incarceration was guaranteed. Petitioner made a similar argument in support of his petition for habeas relief when arguing to the circuit court below. That court found that petitioner's argument was skeletal in nature, but further found that

Petitioner wholly assumes and speculates that: 1) Plea Counsel would have offered advice to respond differently to the

...